posted at 3:21 pm on February 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

Every single Romney donor we spoke with this week listed the former Florida governor as their top choice…

Also, with solid name recognition and the Bush political machine behind him, Romney donors believe Jeb is the most electable of the potential Republican candidates. For Romney donors, electability is the single most important trait.

“If Jeb Bush is in the race, he clears the field,” said one major Romney donor. “You would have someone who has the talent that is equal to Mitt. The natural inclination for Mitt supporters would be to gravitate toward Jeb Bush because he’s a candidate that can win a national race.”

Another huge factor that would help Bush — who has contacted some donors about their receptiveness to a presidential bid and is believed to be seriously considering throwing his hat in the ring — is that his current gig as a senior adviser to Barclays Capital has helped him meet many of the Northeastern private equity types who filled Romney’s campaign coffers.

Christie’s Bridgegate crumble is contributing to Bush fee-vah, but like WaPo says, Christie had already burned some bridges with Mittworld by babbling praise for Obama over Sandy relief the weekend before the 2012 election. Bush has been waiting around for Christiemania to cool among Republican centrists, and now it is, so here we are.

Help me understand this, though:

“If Jeb Bush is in the race, he clears the field,” said one major Romney donor.

Which field? Crowning George Bush’s brother the new king of the Beltway Republicans isn’t going to scare tea-party candidates out of the race. Rand Paul would rather face Christie than Bush for various reasons — Bridgegate, lower name recognition, smaller donor network, plus the fact that Christie has antagonized many more Republicans over the last few years than Bush has — but there are advantages to running against Jeb too. Now he gets to attack not just a RINO but a dynastic RINO, whose own mother thinks it’s poor form for the family to monopolize Republican nominations. Paul’s brand is that he’s a new kind of Republican; nothing would underscore that like running against a Bush, which means he might attract some voters who have issues with him but nonetheless want fresh faces in the party’s leadership. (I’m one of them. I like Paul but doubt I’d support him in the primaries — unless we’re given a stark “old guard versus new guard” choice.) And Paul may relish running against Bush even though it would make his task harder. If you want to shift the Republican Party’s foreign policy paradigm to noninterventionism, you can do worse than have George W. Bush’s brother as your opponent.

What the donor quoted by WaPo probably meant was that Bush would clear the centrist field. No more Christie: He’d conclude that he’s too badly damaged to beat a well-funded Jeb and decide to support him instead. No more Rubio: The Florida Republican establishment would swing behind Jeb, leaving Rubio with no operational base. Probably no more Paul Ryan either. Even if he was inclined to run, it’d be hard to make bank with Mitt’s old donors stampeding towards Bush and hard to turn to grassroots righties for support given that they’re peeved at him over amnesty and last year’s budget. But … what about Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal, who seems like he’s quietly building a proto-campaign? They’d make the same calculation that Paul will — that some segment of Republicans will blanch at the thought of nominating another Bush, whether out of objections to dynasticism or because they fear the “Bush” name is unelectable at this point, and jump in. They’d sell themselves as the Goldilocks option, more conservative than Crown Prince Jeb and more mainstream than Paul, and pull donations from both sides of the party. If/when the center and right reach a stalemate on Bush versus Paul, Walker or Jindal will be there as a compromise choice. The field won’t clear, unless your idea of “the field” runs no further to the right than Rubio.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Five of the past seven elections have been won by two families. Are dopes seriously wanting to make it seven out of nine? There are 330 million people in this country (legally). Which one of you wants to tell me we don’t have two better people than these two. End political royalty. No more Bushes and Clintons.

Five of the past seven elections have been won by two families. Are dopes seriously wanting to make it seven out of nine? There are 330 million people in this country (legally). Which one of you wants to tell me we don’t have two better people than these two. End political royalty. No more Bushes and Clintons.

flyoverland on March 2, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I seriously doubt you’re the only one who feels that way. What an interesting opportunity this might be for a third party candidate. That is, if one emerges who’s not some kind of weirdo.

I speak only for myself, but the Republican Party would be dead to me if another Bush is the nominee. I would, with a clear conscience, vote Libertarian, even if it meant Hillary were to win, because, at that point, what difference would it make?

Every single Romney donor we spoke with this week listed the former Florida governor as their top choice…

Also, with solid name recognition and the Bush political machine behind him, Romney donors believe Jeb is the most electable of the potential Republican candidates. For Romney donors, electability is the single most important trait.

I thought that McCain was the most electable.

Or was it Romney that was the most electable.

Apparently, the “most electable” candidate, according to these morons, is the most liberal person, the most Democrat-lite person that they can find in the Republican party.

Rubio will be Jeb’s veep. It’s what he has been groomed for. Or they will switch it up and have Rubio catch fire in Iowa like Obama, and Jeb will be the veep, thus boosting Hispanic support for the party.

But it’s 2016 or bust for Rubio. He won’t win reelection in his FL senate seat.

Pragmatically, only a Bush could take on a Clinton. The establishment is all in behind Jeb, because the GOP has won it’s last five elections with a Bush on the ticket. Everyone wants to be seen backing a winner.

What rubbish. I was a strong Romney supporter, for one reason and one reason only: his very courageous stance on illegal immigration/amnesty. He is the only major candidate in decades to stand up for the American people on the issue. He was to the RIGHT of every other candidate, Democrat OR Republican. And I am sure there are many others like me.

To suggest that the amnesty-loving Jeb Bush would be our choice next time around is so laughable I can hardly believe anyone seriously suggests it.

Romney was the finest candidate in years for the presidency, and it is due to the spoiled conservatives who sat home and didn’t vote that he lost. Even if he wasn’t perfect (and who would that magic conservative be who was?), he was far better than any of the others of either party. And he didn’t lose because he was weak; he lost because it was assumed the Republicans would support him, and they did not, not in the numbers that were needed and historically given to worse candidates, like McCain.

Pragmatically, only a Bush could take on a Clinton. The establishment is all in behind Jeb, because the GOP has won it’s last five elections with a Bush on the ticket. Everyone wants to be seen backing a winner.